netdev - Re: multicast: bug or "feature"

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <4718FAEA.8060304@hp.com>
Date:	Fri, 19 Oct 2007 14:43:54 -0400
From:	Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>
To:	David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>
Cc:	brian.haley@...com, Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, netdev-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: multicast: bug or "feature"

David Stevens wrote:
> I don't know why you'd want it to be different for multicasting. If you
> want to hear your own multicasts, you should use MULTICAST_LOOP;
> hearing them off the wire indicates all the same bad things -- a forger,
> a duplicate address or a routing loop. Those aren't any better for
> multicasting than they are for unicasting, that I can see.
> 
> Why would you want that to be delivered, other than (apparently)
> to test the multicast capability of a pair of interfaces while using
> only 1 machine?
> 

I don't really, but the customer is complaining.  The customer is 
transitioning from BSD to Linux, but wishes to support both.  The
behaviors are different.  Client applications that assume certain
behavior on BSD, do not work on Linux.

It's just a pain.  I was more wondering why v4 and v6 did things 
different in this case.

-vlad
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html